Draft paper 1
MODERNISATION AND FOOD CHAIN INFORMATION

FVE strives to promote animal health, animal welfare and public health across Europe via
Modernization, Food Chain Information and Herd Health.

Healthy Herds; Healthy Food; Healthy People
Introduction and Background
Internationally, the issue of how meat inspection should be carried out in the future is the subject of
intense discussion. The EU risk assessor, the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) has published a
number of opinions, culminating in June 2013 with a scientific opinion that will “provide the
scientific basis for the modernisation of meat inspection across the EU”. These opinions covers cattle,
sheep, goats, game and horses and follow previously published opinions on pigs and poultry
published in 2011 and 2012. The approach taken by EFSA was to identify foodborne biological and
chemical hazards and rank them according to their risk for public health. For biological hazards, the
priority ranking was based on assessment of impact on incidence of disease, the severity of the
disease in humans and evidence that consumption of meat from the various species is an important
risk factor for the disease. For cattle, EFSA concluded that the main biological hazards are E. Coli
(VTEC) and Salmonella spp. while dioxins and PCBS are the chemical hazards of greatest concern.
Findings for sheep were similar, with the addition of Toxoplasma spp., while in horses, Trichinella
spp. and phenylbutazone were the main concerns. The reports have found that traditional meat
inspection techniques are not always the most effective or efficient methods to deal with the main
risk factors and have recommended changes and improvements. DG Sanco, for the Commission,
functions as the risk manager in the EU context and will now examine the report with a view to
tabling legislative proposals.DG Sanco has already begun actions on foot of the 2011 scientific
opinion on pig meat inspection and earlier this year published a draft Regulation aimed at making
meat inspection for pigs (ante-mortem and post-mortem) more effective and risk-based. The
Regulation provides the option to remove the requirement for obligatory palpation and incision of
lymph nodes and organs, moving instead to visual inspection, because of the risk of microbial crosscontamination.
To prevent cross contamination, those palpations and incisions are not required anymore for
normal animals, but only when abnormalities are identified. (Examples from working group)
When the epidemiological or other data from the holding of provenance of the animals, the
food chain information or the findings of ante-mortem inspection and/or post-mortem visual
detection of relevant abnormalities indicate possible risks to public health, animal health or animal
welfare, it is the responsibility of the official veterinarian to decide which palpations and incisions
1
must be carried out during post mortem inspection in order to decide if the meat is fit for human
consumption.
Palpation and incision techniques are to be limited to suspect pigs identified through
FCI/ante-mortem inspection and/or post-mortem visual detection of relevant abnormalities and
where it would lead to risk reduction. In such situations, palpation/incision can be performed
separately from the slaughter line and accompanied by laboratory testing as required.
Technical Background
Organoleptically detecting zoonotic disease in animals that are slaughtered and eliminating them
from our food supply has been the classical method for meat inspection. However the food chain
has become elongated and unfortunately microbial pathogens now causing the majority of food
borne diseases (e.g. Campylobacter, Salmonella and E Coli 0157) can be shed by animals showing no
clinical signs and these pathogens are undetectable by conventional meat inspection. Nor can we
rely on end product testing of our meat products to guarantee safety as tests are somewhat
insensitive and it is not possible to sample every meat product. These two traditional methods are
retrospective in nature and reactive to problems after they have appeared. Biological, chemical and
physical hazards may enter the food chain at different multiple points. Modernisation and the
modern food safety assurance are pro-active and preventive in nature.
The role of the vet in maintaining the integrity of the food chain
The veterinary role has four pillars - animal health, animal welfare, public health and the
environment. The veterinarian plays a key role in ensuring the safety of foods of animal origin
from farm through to the consumer through providing professional advice and knowledge transfer
of key information through the food chain.
The veterinary practitioner’s role on farm includes advice on animal husbandry, animal health and
animal welfare, surveillance, diagnosis and control of disease. This must be informed by timely
receipt of information from the slaughterhouse as it relates to food safety, and animal health and
welfare.
2
Modernisation promotes three advantages to the food chain
1. Longitudinal approach to food safety using quality FCI
2. Risk Analysis Tool linked to Herd Health
3. Flexibility and adaptability in Modernisation
FVE and
Modernisation
3
1. Longitudinal approach to food safety using quality FCI
Modernisation of meat inspection and its components provides an opportunity for
development of longitudinally integrated food safety systems for meat in the EU. The most effective
approach to control the main hazards in the context of meat inspection is a comprehensive meat
safety assurance system for all animals, combining a range of preventive measures and controls
applied both on the farm and at the slaughterhouse in a longitudinally integrated way. FCI (Food
Chain Information) as defined in the legislation is a two way process linking the veterinary
practitioner with the official vet (OV) at the slaughter house. There are many examples of excellent
FCI providing information from the slaughter house back up the chain to the farm. (Examples for
different species in different countries). FCI should include information on animal welfare in order
to
complement
the
slaughterhouse
surveillance
systems
(ante-mortem and postmortem inspection) and the latter could be used to identify and highlight the on farm welfare
status . FCI back from the slaughter house can assist the farmer and his/her advisors, including the
vet make informed decisions to improve animal and herd health , welfare and public health and
efficiency with respect to carbon emissions.(e.g. from different countries , diseases and species.)
Food Chain Information of course must be linked back to a Herd Health plan (hyperlink to
FVE position paper on herd health planning) and confirmed by veterinary checks on farm. This
involvement of the veterinarian ‘farm to fork’, especially pre-harvest, is central to an integrated
process control. FCI together with other Epidemiological Indicators (EI) facilitates disease
prevention on farm.
FCI and modernisation links EU animal and food legislation
(positive example FCI from working group) Key FCI from the slaughter hall as required under the
Hygiene Package is fundamental to the ‘modernisation of meat inspection’. In addition to
simplification and harmonization, the EU commission is keen to integrate existing and proposed
new legislation affecting the food chain from farm to fork. Such key legislation includes
Modernisation of Meat Inspection, Review of Medicines regulations (while tackling antimicrobial
resistance),the new Animal Health Law and possible a new Animal Welfare Law. (Hyperlink to
other FVE docs). While all the new proposals and past regulations have identified the key role of
Vets there is a paradigm shift that we must all accept. The responsibility for the production of safe
food, the keeping of healthy animals and the ensuring of good welfare standards is with the
business operator and the farmer.
2) Risk Analysis Tool linked to Herd Health
Currently FCI and EI are often absent with poor meaningful linkage to and from the farm.
Quality FCI and EI will facilitate a multidisciplinary approach including veterinary lead risk
assessment and risk management on farm to improve not only animal health and welfare but also
food safety and production. Our vision is that various key parameters from all sections of the food
chain could be gathered and measured (examples of FCI measured parameters from working
4
group), creating a typical bell-graph curve that provides a benchmark facilitating improvement
literally from farm to fork. You can only improve what you can measure.
FCI will provide assurance on herd health standards, welfare compliance and that
withholding periods for medicines are observed. FCI should be robust, easy to collect and be useful
to the farmer and FBO. Meaningful FCI will allow the FBO or the OV exercise target residue testing
from animals from farms with poor animal health or where meaningful FCI is absent (provide
examples from working group). This will mean that in the future those who are consistently
delivering on their responsibilities will be rewarded by less inspection and reduced cost of
inspection. In the new proposal on the Official Control a new phrase "Bonus Malus" has been
introduced which means that those with good performance are rewarded and those with bad
performance will have to pay with additional visits. Meat inspection is moving towards visual for
low risk and acknowledgment of good Food Chain Information.
5
Potential outcomes and benefits from quality FCI and EI
1) The practitioner can add integrity to the Food Chain Information through advice to the farmer
on Good Farming Practice, HACCP, Herd Health Planning and collection and interpretation of data.
Epidemiology serves two major purposes in herd (health) management:

Monitoring (use of key indicators/trends)

Risk factor analysis (identify high risk animals)
FCI provides the farmer and vet with up to date information on health parameters and allow
comparison of previous FCI. This provides a mechanism of assessing previous herd health
improvements on farm. Herd health planning is specific to individual farms where unique
circumstances require individual farm targets to be set and improvement measured.
2) FCI from the slaughter house can add to the body of other EI, key production, health and welfare
indicators derived from many sources (production data from farm software, feed analysis, analysis
6
from veterinary laboratory, clinical and health data, weight gain, mortality, morbidity etc.).This
data could be stored in a central database and accessed by veterinary and other service providers.
Harmonisation of the FCI and EI will facilitate benchmarking and epidemiological comparison for
various farming sectors (e.g. dairy, beef, sheep etc) and other demographical variation, not only at
farm level but also at regional and country level.
3) At veterinary practice level vets must communicate with their clients and establish what the
emerging needs of the clients are. This will inevitable lead to an expansion in the range of services
provided. They must also promote the services available from the practice and cannot assume that
farmers are aware of the range of services provided. At macro level farm Quality Assurance is
becoming the marketing standard used to signify levels of farm excellence in many aspects. Farm
assurance needs to focus on objective measures that focus on outputs relevant to quality. In many
programmes, the focus is on inputs (what people do) rather than outputs (what is achieved).
3) Flexibility and adaptability in Modernisation
European Legislation and standards care about animal health and welfare, food safety and
sustainability. Modernisation with high quality FCI recognizes the different cultures and
geographical and farming diversity that exists in the EU.For a number of reasons, including socioeconomic factors, there is no one global answers to modernisation. Each Member State,
compartment or region, must be given time and flexibility to adapt an approach appropriate to
local circumstances while delivering the equivalent ‘food safety objective’. The speed of
modernisation will therefore vary between member states with a long transition period for some.
Member states have different farming demographics affected by diverse socioeconomic factors. For
example, small farm size, farm structural development and expansion (with overcrowding at
housing ) and biosecurity challenges may affect the animal health ,welfare and food safe status as
they enter the slaughterhouse. In these situations traditional meat inspection (including palpation
and incision) may be deemed necessary by the official OV. However FCI when collated and
analysed together with other EI may prompt the farmer, farmer groups or indeed competent
authority to centrally support efforts to improve herd health back on the farm. The practicing vet
has a significant role to play here in providing professional input into herd health planning and
farm quality assurance.
What does all this mean for the practitioner (PVP)? It means that the PVP has to adapt to the new
circumstances and recognize the new opportunities while accepting that the competent authority
in member states is incrementally taking a hand off approach.
It will mean promoting and marketing and winning business rather than in the past waiting
for government to act as "sponsor" of various schemes.
Firstly the veterinary practitioner can provide clinical and herd health and welfare services
for his farmer client including advising and prescribing appropriate veterinary medicines.
Secondly when on farm the veterinary practitioner may be carrying out duties of public good
7
for the regulator such as providing surveillance and feeding forward accurate FCI for
interpretation by the FBO and the OV at the slaughter house,
Any change introduced should be gradual. Many Member States will lack the industry
structures or capacity to fulfil the pre-requisites for the changes described in the current
proposals. It is significant that the flexibilities already within the Regulations, to permit
Official Auxiliaries or employees of the Food Business Operators to carry out inspection tasks,
have only been implemented in a minority of Member States. Veterinarians must have the
education and the necessary resources to enable them to fulfil their tasks.
Poultry welfare matters for both ethical and practical reasons. From an ethical perspective,
chickens have a sufficient degree of awareness or “sentience” to suffer pain if their health is
poor, or deprivation if they are poorly housed. From a practical viewpoint, consumers value
poultry welfare, so better market access may be obtained by producers who ensure good
welfare in their flocks.
Conclusions and summary points
Meaningful FCI as part of modernization, interpreted and delivered by the vet can be the
vehicles for positive change.

Within the EU, the government and regulatory authority role is changing from control
via law enforcement to supporting the FBO (including the farmer) to take
responsibility and ownership of standards through integrated animal health welfare
and food safety in their businesses.

The consumer and markets, at the end of the day will dictate the values they require in
the food chain including on farm. We must be mindful of this during the process of
communicating risk and change during the modernization process.

There is a need for standardization of food chain information (FCI) and
epidemiological information (EI) which can be reported to a central (European) data
base for further interrogation.

Modernization with good quality FCI linked to herd health planning supports not only
animal health welfare and food safety but also environmental protection and
sustainability.

Excellence in knowledge transfer is a pre requisite in the ability to share and use food
chain information up and down the food chain for positive change.

FVE embrace the multidisciplinary approach to risk assessment, management and
communication.

Animal health, welfare and food safety are inextricably linked and influence each other
both positively and negatively (examples from working group)
8